Roy, you wrote, at the end of one of your messages:
> Hmmmm, I guess I could use some sleep...
I'll go along with that.
In case people have forgotten where we are in the process, we're
trying to close on the list of topics to be considered for HTTP/1.2.
That's why the discussion is a bit wide-ranging at the moment. I
expect that we'll want to shut down discussion to focus on those
things that have made the cut. But it's not inappropriate for people
to bring up proposals at the moment, including "multi-host virutal
sites".
In the case of the implementation guide, there have been and continue
to be topics where we've not extended the specification to explain how
something might be implemented, even though that discussion would be
useful in some specification. We've rejected proposals with the
dismissal that "it belongs in an implementation guide". Martin
Hamilton volunteered to gather together topics that belong "in an
implementation guide", whether they are new or are current parts of
the HTTP/1.1 specification.
It was inappropriate to chastise the "chopping list" as "out of
scope", since it was explicitly asked for, and there was concurrence
that it would be very useful to have such a list. I think the only
problem was that you misunderstood the intent: the goal isn't to chop
anything from THIS draft. We may be able to split HTTP/1.1 into two
parts when we go from Proposed to Draft, and move the implementation
advice elements into the informational guide.
I don't think we've decided to do this; but the first step was to
gather together a set of topics and see what resulted. Martin did so,
and asked for feedback on the list he generated -- not on the question
of whether or not such a list would be useful.
Regards,
Larry